Modern History Sourcebook:
Jawaharlal Nehru:
Marxism, Capitalism and Non-Alignment

Nehru, India's first Prime Minister after independence, (1947)
was the creator of such terms as "neutralism", "Third
World", and "non-alignment".

Marxism, Capitalism and India's Future (1941)

As our struggle toned down and established itself at a low level,
there was little of excitement in it, except at long intervals.
My thoughts traveled more to other countries, and I watched and
studied, as far as I could in jail, the world situation in the
grip of the great depression. I read as many books as I could
find on the subject, and the more I read the more fascinated I
grew. India with her problems and struggles became just a part
of this mighty world drama, of the great struggle of political
and economic forces that was going on everywhere, nationally and
internationally. In that struggle my own sympathies went increasingly
toward the communist side.

I had long been drawn to socialism and communism, and Russia had
appealed to me. Much in Soviet Russia I dislike-the ruthless suppression
of all contrary opinion, the wholesale regimentation, the unnecessary
violence (as I thought) in carrying out various policies. But
there was no lack of violence and suppression in the capitalist
world, and I realized more and more how the very basis and foundation
of our acquisitive society and property was violence. Without
violence it could not continue for many days. A measure of political
liberty meant little indeed when the fear of starvation was always
compelling the vast majority of people everywhere to submit to
the will of the few, to the greater glory and advantage of the
latter.

Violence was common in both places, but the violence of the capitalist
g order seemed inherent in it; while the violence of Russia, bad
though it was t aimed at a new order based on peace and co­operation
and real freedom for the masses. With all her blunders, Soviet
Russia had triumphed over enormous difficulties and taken great
strides toward this new order While the rest of the world was
in the grip of the depression and going backward in some ways,
in the Soviet country a great new world was being built up before
our eyes. Russia, following the great Lenin, looked into the future
and thought only of what was to be, while other countries lay
numbed under the dead hand of the past and spent their energy
in preserving the useless relics of a bygone age. In particular,
I was impressed by the reports of the great progress made by the
backward regions of Central Asia under the Soviet regime. In
the balance, therefore, I was all in favor of Russia, and the
presence and example of the Soviets was a bright and heartening
phenomenon in a dark and dismal world.

But Soviet Russia's success or failure, vastly important as it
was as a practical experiment in establishing a communist state,
did not affect the soundness of the theory of communism. The Bolsheviks
may blunder or even fail because of national or international
reasons, and yet the communist theory may be correct. On the basis
of that very theory it was absurd to copy blindly what had taken
place in Russia, for its application depended on the particular
conditions prevailing in the country in question and the stage
of its historical development. Besides, India, or any other country,
could profit by the triumphs as well as the inevitable mistakes
of the Bolsheviks. Perhaps the Bolsheviks had tried to go too
fast because, surrounded as they were by a world of enemies,
they feared external aggression. A slower tempo might ; avoid
much of the misery caused in the rural areas. But then the question
rose if really radical results could be obtained by slowing down
the rate of change. Reformism was an impossible solution of any
vital problem at a critical moment when the basic structure had
to be changed, and, however slow the progress might be later on,
the initial step must be a complete break with the existing order,
which had fulfilled its purpose and was now only a drag on future
progress.

In India, only a revolutionary plan could solve the two related
questions of the land and industry as well as almost every other
major problem before the country....

Russia apart, the theory and philosophy of Marxism lightened up
many a dark corner of my mind. History came to have a new meaning
for me. The Marxist interpretation threw a flood of light on it,
and it became an unfolding drama with some order and purpose,
howsoever unconscious, behind it. In spite of the appalling waste
and misery of the past and the present, the future was bright
with hope, though many dangers intervened. It was the essential
freedom from dogma and the scientific outlook of Marxism that
appealed to me. It was true that there was plenty of dogma in
official communism in Russia and elsewhere, and frequently heresy
hunts were organized. That seemed to be deplorable, though it
was not difficult to understand in view of the tremendous changes
taking place rapidly in the Soviet countries when effective opposition
might have resulted in catastrophic failure.

The great world crisis and slump seemed to justify the Marxist
analysis. While all other systems and theories were groping about
in the dark, Marxism alone explained it more or less satisfactorily
and offered a real solution.

As this conviction grew upon me, I was filled with a new excitement,
and my depression at the nonsuccess of civil disobedience grew
much less Was not the world marching rapidly toward the desired
consummation? There were grave dangers of wars and catastrophes,
but at any rate we were moving There was no stagnation. Our national
struggle became a stage in the 1onger journey, and it was as well
that repression and suffering were tempering our people for future
struggles and forcing them to consider the new ideas that were
stirring the world. We would be the stronger and the more disciplined
and hardened by the elimination of the weaker elements. Time was
in our favor.

from Toward Freedom: The Autobiograplly of Jawaharlal Nehru
(New York: John Day Co., 1941), pp. 228-231;

Economic Development and Nonalignment (1956)

We are now engaged in a gigantic and exciting task of achieving
rapid and large­scale economic development of our country.
Such development, in an ancient and underdeveloped country such
as India, is only possible with purposive planning. True to our
democratic principles and traditions, we seek, in free discussion
and consultation as well as in implementation, the enthusiasm
and the willing and active cooperation of our people. We completed
our first Five­Year Plan 8 months ago, and now we have begun
on a more ambitious scale our second Five­Year Plan, which
seeks a planned development in agriculture and industry, town
and country, and between factory and small­scale and cottage
production. I speak of India because it is my country and I have
some right to speak for her. But many other countries in Asia
tell the same story, for Asia today is resurgent, and these countries
which long lay under foreign yoke have won back their independence
and are fired by a new spirit and strive toward new ideals. To
them, as to us, independence is as vital as the breath they take
to sustain life, and colonialism, in any form, or anywhere, is
abhorrent....

. . . Peace and freedom have become indivisible, and the world
cannot continue for long partly free and partly subject. In this
atomic age peace has also become a test of human survival.

Recently we have witnessed two tragedies which have powerfully
affected men and women all over the world. These are the tragedies
in Egypt and Hungary. Our deeply felt sympathies must go out to
those who have suffered or are suffering, and all of us must do
our utmost to help them and to assist in solving these problems
in a peaceful and constructive way. But even these tragedies have
one hopeful aspect, for they have demonstrated that the most powerful
countries cannot revert to old colonial methods or impose their
domination over weak countries. World opinion has shown that it
can organize itself to resist such outrages. Perhaps, as an outcome
of these tragedies, freedom will he enlarged and will have a more
assured basis.

The preservation of peace forms the central aim of India's policy.
It is in the pursuit of this policy that we have chosen the path
of nonalinement [nonalignment] in any military or like pact of
alliance. Nonalinement does not mean passivity of mind or action,
lack of faith or conviction. It does not mean submission to what
we consider evil. It is a positive and dynamic approach to t such
problems that confront us. We believe that each country has not
only the e right to freedom but also to decide its own policy
and way of life. Only thus can true freedom flourish and a people
grow according to their own genius

We believe, therefore, in nonaggression and non­interference
by one country in the affairs of another and the growth of tolerance
between them and the capacity for peaceful coexistence. We think
that by the free exchange of ideas and trade and other contacts
between nations each will learn f rom the other and truth will
prevail. We therefore endeavor to maintain friendly relationS
with all countries, even though we may disagree with them in their
policies or structure of government. We think that by this approach
we can serve not only our country but also the larger causes of`
peace and good ; fellowship in the world.

from a speech in Washington, D.C., December 18, 1956, printed
in the U.S. Department of State Bulletin, January 14, 1957,
pp. 49­50.

This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook.
The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted
texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World
history.

Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the
document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying,
distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal
use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source.
No permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook.